As has been explained to you and Poptech many times, all statism is progressive.
This is correct. And they have run the entire American political establishment for decades with the exception of Ron Paul.
Spidey is just down on democrats because they are in power. When the tea baggers get their favorite war monger in, then it will be kill Iranians, kill Yemenis, kill Pakistanis, budget deficit be damned, collapse the dollar be damned.
When you’ve watched this stuff for 20 years, you see how nothing changes politically. It just gets worse.
Neocons worship those guys down to a tee. They speak of them as if they’re Vulcan scholars. You can get a rough idea of what shock jock a neocon is parroting by what he squawks.
That about sums up the tea baggers. Like the “it feels goooood” anti-war protests of yesteryears, tea bagging parties are just one, big, pointless social gathering with no sense of direction. They’re either a cocoon phase of civil disobedience, or a knee jerk reaction which will fade away once George Bush usurps the throne from Obama.
LOL GOOD ONE!
Bullshit. That huge chunk is vociferous in its smear campaign against Ron Paul. I couldn’t find a post on neocon site that didn’t follow this formula:
Dismiss him as a kooky extremist because he’s too radical for lukewarm water.
Spout off some red herrings about him being neo-nazi, sympathizing racist (so much irony) based on a strawman.
Completely miss the point of his campaign.
Completely miss the point of a large decentralized effort for fund rasing, and call it spamming.
Completely miss the point about everything, and continue to make an ass out of yourself in the process.
It’s just ripe with that Republican spirit I was talking about. In there, what lies not is doubt, inquiry, intellectual honesty, consistency, and a feedback system. It’s like an electric current streaming (that doesn’t know when to quit) down a dead frog’s leg.
Go on the Sean Hannity forums and search for Ron Paul topics. It will either be a complete laugh-a-thon all the way through or will make your head explode because of all the pressure the stupidity is exerting on you.
I read one topic, where the mods and various users were comparing Jim Jones to Obama. It’s funny to an extent, but the lack of depth there is usurious.
Both parties appeal to the overall feelings of the American populace.
I’m not going to say your observations aren’t valid or important, but they are reflections of your own personal experiences nonetheless.
The same goes for my observations, I’m not the source of all knowledge and truth, just a particular vision of the world. A very particular vision.
All statism may be progressive to you. But I think that there is a big difference between someone like Nancy Pelosi and myself. You may not think so. That’s fine. But I see it.
As P.J O’Rourke wrote, “Republicans run on the platform that government doesn’t work. Then they get elected and prove it.”
I’d add that they’re not really proving anything, they just spend like crazy (as all governments instinctively do) and wonder why the economy ends up tanking.
Democrats, on the other, tend to run with the delusional notion that government can somehow “work”. Then they spend like crazy and, when this tanks the economy, advocate more spending! When this fails they’ll detract blame by stating the Republicans in congress wouldn’t let them spend even more.
Either way, It’s the usual “government can work if we only give it enough love and support” line that’s been going on for centuries.
I have no idea what tea-parties have to do with this. They are all limited government libertarians based on the actual definition. And all three wanted nothing to do with anarchists.
So if you support the existence of the military you support the warfare state? Awesome, I am a warfare state supporter then! Your terminology is supposed to “shock” people into agreeing with you except it has the exact opposite on someone who actually thinks for themselves (like me).
Wrong, the word aggression has nothing to do with the definition of the word libertarian. We have went over this many times. Yet you keep repeating this lie.
Libertarian (Defined) - “One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.”
No, it is all progressivism. There is no form of statism that doesn’t conform to the progressive paradigm.
You both want to exercise power over others. The trivia of how the power is exercised is academic.
Because it allows you to rationalize supporting what she does, as long as it is done for different ends.
I’m not judging you. You’re way better than Poptech, because you don’t pretend you’re a libertarian. You know you’re a statist. That’s fine. What I think is a lot of BS, is claiming that one form of aggression is better than another, when you both know, the standard is that all aggression is immoral. It’s like quibbling over poisoning someone, or stabbing them. Robbing someone, or burning their house down. Forcing someone to get healthcare, or throwing them in jail for not paying taxes. Statism is not the market, and it is a very narrow paradigm for social organization.
More positivism. Seriously, what is the difference between you and Pelosi?
He doesn’t. He just draws the logical conclusion. One cannot stand both for liberty and slavery at the same time. As such, a libertarian can only be one that stands for consensual government.
There is a big difference between you and Nancy Pelosi but you have to understand who you are talking to. These people want to ABOLISH the United States. to them you are a statist who supports murder. They try to use what they think are shock words in hopes of converting the weak minded. Yet I am still a limited government libertarian and there is nothing they can do about it.
I realize you think this allows you to freely define words it doesn’t sorry. The word libertarian has a defined meaning well established in every dictionary, it has nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism or any sort of non-aggression pacifism.
On the contrary, there are hundreds of articles and pieces of media on this site, which clearly define libertarianism as the rejection of aggressive force. Your use of outside definitions by a layman’s dictionary proves absolutely nothing.
But even if we went with the notion of one who maximizes individual rights (they either are rights, or they are not) then one would have to reject the state. Heads you lose, tails I win. It’s a simple matter of logic.
Sure, isn’t “war the health of the state”? That’s what Ron Paul says.
Not at all. I am simply making unambiguous statements.
But I’m not concerned with what you think. I’m not trying to change your mind. You’re convinced that using aggression is moral. You’re convinced that it is ok to violate property rights. I’m interested in people who care about rights and immorality, free markets and economics.
Stephan Kinsella has written an excellent piece on what libertarianism is. I’ve recommended you read it several times, and when done, offer criticisms. The issue with coming to LvMI and wanting to introduce non-Austrians like Rand and Friedman, as well as non-Austrian definitions, is that unless you can substantiate your claims, then its really just a waste of time.
Well Hayek is an odd bird, he’s definitely not a libertarian by his own words. And Rand hated libertarians, you’re not even Objectivist, let alone libertarian by her standards. Friedman was a Chicagoite. Both his son (David) and grandson (Patri) are anarchists. But Milton was neither Austrian, nor libertarian. I believe he was a classic liberal in the James Madison sense.
And Mises, well that’s been refuted here quite well. There is little doubt that while Mises was not an anarchist himself, he would not oppose say David Friedman’s Machinery of Friedman Ancap or my praxeological Voluntarism.
The dictionary also defines theft as copying copyrighted material. Yet copy and theft are not synonymous. I suppose you think the Patriot Act is patriotic as well right?
The definition is not should have limits but “minimizing the role of the state.” Pelosi is doing everything in her power to maximize the role of the state.
That’s an assertion, but I suspect you are trying to infer that my observations are illogical. I’ve already confronted you on logic, and I think my position is consistent, while I have shown that yours is not.
No. We want to abolish monopoly and aggression. You are welcome to be your own United States with anyone who wants to be in the United States with you. But you do not have the moral authority to force people to be in the United States against their will. As someone said, at the end of the day, it is not about libertarian principles, but jingoism.
It’s not about shock words. It’s about being able to employ logical arguments.
Yes, you are still trying to identify yourself by a label which is logically inconsistent.